brazil84 comments on The $125,000 Summer Singularity Challenge - Less Wrong

20 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 29 July 2011 09:02PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (259)
Tags: charity siai

Comments (259)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: brazil84 31 July 2011 08:38:20PM 1 point [-]

Earlier, we had this exchange:

Me:

But Watson was totally clueless. Even though it had the necessary information, it had to rely on pre-programmed algorithms to access that information. It was apparently unable to come up with a new algorithm on the fly.

You:

Whatever method we use to "come up with algorithms on the fly" is itself an algorithm, just a more complicated one.

So you seemed to be saying that there's no big deal about the human ability to come up with a new algorithm -- it's just another algorithm. Which is technically true, but this sort of meta-algorithm obviously would require a lot more sophistication to create.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 31 July 2011 08:51:39PM 0 points [-]

Well, yes. Though probably firstly should note that I am skeptical that what you are talking about -- the process of answering a Final Jeopardy question -- could actually be described as coming up with new algorithms on the fly in the first place. Regardless, if we do accept that, my point that there is no meaningful distinction between relying on pre-programmed algorithms, and (algorithmically) coming up with new ones on the fly, stands. There's plenty of ways in which our brains are more sophisticated than Watson, but that one isn't a meaningful distinction. Perhaps you mean something else.

Comment author: brazil84 31 July 2011 09:16:22PM 0 points [-]

my point that there is no meaningful distinction between relying on pre-programmed algorithms, and (algorithmically) coming up with new ones on the fly,

Then again my question: Why not program such a meta-algorithm into Watson?

Comment author: Sniffnoy 31 July 2011 09:27:08PM 0 points [-]

I still don't think you're saying what you mean. The question doesn't make any sense. The answer to the question you probably intended to ask is, "Because the people writing Watson didn't know how to do so in a way that would solve the problem, and presumably nobody currently does". I mean, I think I get your point, but...

Comment author: brazil84 31 July 2011 09:37:30PM 1 point [-]

Because the people writing Watson didn't know how to do so in a way that would solve the problem, and presumably nobody currently does

Fine, so it's a bit like the state of rocket science in 1900. They had crude military rockets but did not know how to make the kind of really destructive stuff that would come 100 years later. As I said, AI still has a way to go.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 31 July 2011 11:24:13PM 1 point [-]

Oh, yeah, of course. :)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit